The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Claude Opus 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 59.7 to 5.2. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is 22.1x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · Meta · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Opus 5.5 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 59.7 to 5.2, ranking #1 overall.

On price, Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is roughly 22.1x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Claude Opus 5.5 also accepts a larger context window (1,000,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Claude Opus 5.5

  • overall performance matters — it scores 59.7 and ranks #1 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,000,000 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

  • cost matters — it's about 22.1x cheaper per token
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Opus 5.5
Anthropic
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Meta
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
59.7
#1
5.2
#303
Reasoning
57.8
#1
6.7
#291
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$4.00 / M
$0.35 / M
Output price
$20.00 / M
$0.40 / M
Context window
1,000,000
128,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

3 shared
Index
Claude Opus 5.5
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Math
42.5#5
11.6#239
Vision
42.8#1
2.8#170
Multimodal
42.5#1
5.6#141
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

31 reported for Claude Opus 5.5 · 13 for Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

No common benchmarks found

Claude Opus 5.5 and Llama 3.2 90B Instructdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct costs less

For input processing, Claude Opus 5.5 ($4.00/1M tokens) is 11.4x more expensive than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct ($0.35/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Opus 5.5 ($20.00/1M tokens) is 50.0x more expensive than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct ($0.40/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Opus 5.5 is more expensive than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Wed Sep 23 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Opus 5.5
Input tokens$4.00
Output tokens$20.00
Best providerAnthropic
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Input tokens$0.35
Output tokens$0.40
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude Opus 5.5 accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to Llama 3.2 90B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Both models can generate responses up to 128,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Opus 5.5
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Wed Sep 23 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Claude Opus 5.5 and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Claude Opus 5.5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Opus 5.5 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct uses Llama 3.2.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude Opus 5.5

Proprietary

Closed source

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Llama 3.2

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Opus 5.5 was released on 2026-09-22, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct was released on 2024-09-25.

Claude Opus 5.5 is 24 months newer than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.

Claude Opus 5.5

Sep 22, 2026

0 days ago

2.0yr newer
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Sep 25, 2024

2.0 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Claude Opus 5.5 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-01, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Claude Opus 5.5's training data extends to 2026-06-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Llama 3.2 90B Instruct's cutoff date.

Claude Opus 5.5

Jun 2026

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

—

Provider Availability

Claude Opus 5.5 is available from Anthropic. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is available from DeepInfra, Bedrock, Fireworks, Together, Hyperbolic.

Claude Opus 5.5

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $4.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $20.00/1M

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.35/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.40/1M
bedrock logo
AWS Bedrock
Input Price:Input: $0.72/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.72/1M
fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $0.89/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.89/1M
together logo
Together
Input Price:Input: $1.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M
hyperbolic logo
Hyperbolic
Input Price:Input: $2.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $2.00/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Opus 5.5 and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Opus 5.5
✓ Preferred
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Opus 5.5 vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.

Which is better, Claude Opus 5.5 or Llama 3.2 90B Instruct?

Claude Opus 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 59.7 to 5.2. Claude Opus 5.5 is made by Anthropic and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is made by Meta. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude Opus 5.5 compare to Llama 3.2 90B Instruct in benchmarks?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores BenchCAD (with Python tool): 96.2%, Global-MMLU: 94.3%, SWE-bench Multilingual: 93.9%, MILU: 93.1%, ArXivMath: 91.2%. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct scores AI2D: 92.3%, DocVQA: 90.1%, MGSM: 86.9%, MMLU: 86.0%, ChartQA: 85.5%.

Is Claude Opus 5.5 cheaper than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct?

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is 11.4x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Opus 5.5 costs $4.00/M input and $20.00/M output via anthropic. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct costs $0.35/M input and $0.40/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Opus 5.5 and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct?

Claude Opus 5.5 supports 1.0M tokens and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Opus 5.5 and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (59.7 vs 5.2), context window (1.0M vs 128K), input pricing ($4.00 vs $0.35/M), licensing (Proprietary vs Llama 3.2). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Opus 5.5 and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct?

Claude Opus 5.5 is developed by Anthropic and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is developed by Meta.

Related comparisons